According to a book Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide published by Henry Jenkins, he describes the convergence culture theory as ‘the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kind of entertainment experiences they want.’ (Jenkins 2006, p. 2). Besides, convergence is a term that can figure out how to portray technological, economical, modern, cultural, and social changes relying upon who’s talking and what they think they are discussing.
First and foremost, ‘technological convergence’ refers to extensive development in sorts of news source and interface and content dissemination over those outlets and interfaces. Secondly, Jenkins (2016) illustrates the definition of ‘economic convergence’ would be able to describe as the main period of a lengthy procedure of media focus, were making it increasingly attractive for organizations to appropriate substance over those different channels instead of inside a solitary media platform.
Thirdly, the concept of cultural convergence depicts the new types of creativity that are emerging from customers. It can be seen that cultural convergence brings numerous benefits to a human being. For Jenkins, the present convergence culture crosses conventional limits of specialization and fields of research. It takes into account practically any type of media to be delivered by practically any individual or substance, paying little heed to earlier preparing. This shift requires every expert to meet with and explore the data structures and innovations as they exist and change.
Moreover, it is universally acknowledging that in Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, Jenkins claims that cultural convergence culture speaks to a move in the open’s relationship to media. From his point of view, this move is first through mainstream society, where the abilities procured through play likewise have applications in the realms of training, work, and governmental issues. Besides, Jenkins also focuses on an assortment of social, corporate, and scholarly organizations that are endeavoring to disrupt their entrenchment by displaying new activities on grassroots fan networks. Thus, these new activities profit by what Jenkins calls a period of media combination and aggregate knowledge. However, there still exist some limitations in the conceptualization of convergence culture.
According to an article Rethinking Convergence/ Culture (2011), Mark Andrejevic and Jack Bratich inspect the ensnarement of convergence discourse with modern discourse about social space by and including modern types of estimating and overseeing social and financial activity and new modalities of war. Inevitably, the convergence debate intersects with the shifting structures of capitalism from several different directions and another major strand in this particular issue are articles that aim to change our interpretation of convergence to make it more accessible to other such as sharper and versatile. Besides, it is not to mention that both Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell offer an increasingly major analysis of the convergence discourse by problematizing from the beginning of the concept that we can undoubtedly distinguish between what is ‘new’ and why it makes a difference, without explaining ‘who’ the issue is for, and inside what longer direction of intensity reproduction it is planned. In conclusion, Jenkins illustrates the culture of convergence speaks to a move in how we communicate with the media. This move is not a moment but a phase and we are as of now living in a world of convergence culture. We may initially make this change through our relations with mainstream society, however the ability an individual gain through play may have consequences for how they learn, work, take an interest in the legislative procedure, and interface with others around the globe.
According to a book Platform Capitalism by Nick Srnicek, the definition of the platform can be viewed as digital infrastructures that allow two or more groups to communicate with each other. Besides, the platform turned into a proficient method to process, remove, examine, and utilize the undeniably a lot of information that was being collected. Presently this model has now spread over the economy, with different organizations consolidating stages: incredible innovation organizations such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon, dynamic new businesses (Uber, Airbnb), mechanical pioneers (GE, Siemens), and agrarian powerhouses (John Deere, Monsanto). It is not to mention that these platforms likewise accompany a set of tools that empower their clients to assemble their own items, services, and marketplaces.
Moreover, it is undeniable that the platform as a new business model brings numerous benefits to users. Firstly, the platform offers a basic framework for mediating between individuals. This is the way in for its potential advantage over a traditional business model with regards to information since a platform places itself among clients, and as the basis whereupon their activities happen, which subsequently gives it advantaged access to track them. The second important aspect is that digital platforms generate and rely on ‘network effects’: the more significant the numbers of users using a platform, the more useful the platform is for everyone else. In addition, the capability to swiftly scale many platform businesses by depending on previous infrastructure and modest negligible costs implies that growth has few natural limits. For example, one explanation behind Uber’s rapid development is that it does not have to assemble new processing factories – it merely requires to lease more servers. Joined with network effects, this implies platforms can become extremely large rapidly. Last but not least, platforms are being likewise planned such that makes them alluring to its shifted clients.
While regularly introducing themselves as unfilled spaces for others to associate on, they in certainly epitomize a governmental issue. Both of these features make platforms the main business models for data extraction and data management. The internet has become an extremely powerful method of sorting out organization businesses through a series of innovations in order to hoard this information, then collect, evaluate, utilize and sell them. For instance, prominent organizations such as Google and Facebook, information are, essentially, an asset that can be used for bait in promoters and other invested individuals. Moreover, for firms like Rolls Royce and Uber, information is at the core of beating the opposition: they empower such firms to deliver better items and services, monitor labours and enhance their calculation for a progressively profitable market. Similarly, platforms such as AWS and Predix are geared towards building the essential infrastructures required to obtain, examine, and deliver data for different organization to utilize, and a lease is extricated for these network services. For each situation, gathering enormous measure of information is integral to the business model, and the platform offers the perfect extractive devices. Besides, the relationship between users and social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Instagram will be discussed. In the sense of several different partnerships, individuals use social media networks. Friends send pictures and recording videos specifically. Purchasers communicate with each other and with delegates of the associations delivering the goods and services.
Collaborators in the research plan and execute ventures. Relatives share updates of achievements and important life occasions. In each situation, individuals are appropriating the fundamental capacity of social networking infrastructure to enable interaction, sharing of data, and exchanging of digital artefacts on the side of their connection.
Pariser notes that ‘personalization is a core strategy for the top five sites on the internet – Yahoo, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Microsoft Live’ (2011, p. 8). Why is it a core strategy, and what are the implications?
According to TechTarget (2007), personalization is ‘a means of meeting the customer’s needs more effectively and efficiently, making interactions faster and easier and, consequently, increasing customer satisfaction and the likelihood of repeat visits’. The theory of the Internet giants as a marketing strategy is straightforward: The more significant their data contributions are, the more promotion they can sell, and the almost certain you are to purchase the items they are advertising. As an example that goes, up to 60 percent of Netflix’s rentals originate from the customized gets it can make about every client’s film tastes and at this stage, Netflix can anticipate whether you would like a given movie in about half a star. Additionally, personalization does not just shape what we purchase. Personalized news feeds like Facebook are turning into an essential news source for a rapidly rising percentage of us – at 36 percent of under thirty Americans receive their news through social media platforms. What’s more, Facebook’s prevalence is soaring worldwide, with almost a million additional individuals joining every day. Besides, personalization is forming how data streams long ways past Facebook, as websites from Yahoo News to the New York Times approach their articles to our specific wishes and desires. It’s impacting what recordings we watch on YouTube and a dozen litter rivals, and what blog posts we read. Our lives begin to be orchestrated by the algorithms that arrange our advertisements.
The fundamental code at the core of the new Internet is quite basic. Besides, the new age of the Internet: channels take a gander at the things you appear to like the real things you’ve done, or the things individuals like you like and attempt to extrapolate. They are expectation motors, continually making and refining a hypothesis of what your identity is and what you’ll do and need straightaway. Together, these motors make an extraordinary universe of data for everyone – ‘filter bubble’ which fundamentally adjusts the manner in which we experience thoughts and data. Moreover, the filter bubble presents three elements. First, a cable channel that obliges to a narrow interest has different watchers with whom you share a reference case with. However, in your bubble, you’re the main character. During a time when shared data is the bedrock of shared understanding, the filter bubble is a divergent power, pulling us separated. Second, the filter bubble is imperceptible. Most watchers of conventional or liberal news sources realize that they are heading off a station curated to serve a specific political perspective. Last but not least, you don’t decide to enter the bubble. It’s a functioning procedure, and like putting on a couple of colored glasses, you can think about how the editors’ inclining shapes your observation. You don’t settle on a similar sort of decision with personalized channels.
Personalization is as of now considerably more a piece of our day by day experience than a large number of us understand. We would be able to start to perceive how the filter bubble is really functioning, whether it falls short, and what the meanings for our daily lives and our society. At last, the filter bubble can ultimately influence your capacity to pick how you need to live. The filter bubble costs are both individual and social. There are immediate ramifications for those of us who utilize customized channels. What’s more, there are cultural outcomes, which develop when masses of individuals start to carry on with a filter-bubble life.